4 ms·

I've had people get into hair spitting arguments with me over whether or not the clearly manipulative and distorted news reporting style in mainstream publicati

I've had people get into hair spitting arguments with me over whether or not the clearly manipulative and distorted news reporting style in mainstream publications (NYTimes is a good example) ought to count as fake news. Personally I don't care for the term. I think the traditional term propaganda is on target and suitably broad that it applies to both social media manipulation (fabricated blog posts on your Facebook newsfeed) and traditional media manipulation (overwhelming biases at most news publications).

Theodores 9y ago
Propaganda is different to Fake News. The term itself is propaganda. If you say something is propaganda then you are saying it is like classic obvious propaganda, e.g. North Korean, Soviet or anything else 'communist'. With the term Fake News there is a dismissal of the story without aligning it to the imagery that the word 'propaganda' brings to mind. Consequently it is easier to use the words Fake News and not have the baggage of the more accurate 'propaganda' word.
hsod 9y ago
Can you explain (or link to an explanation for) your conclusion that there exists "overwhelming biases at most news publications", or even at the NYT in particular? I'm particularly interested in anything quasi-rigorous (i.e. not based on an individuals subjective feelings), but a well-reasoned personal perspective would be illuminating as well. My perception is that the NYT (on the news side) is imperfect but is fundamentally oriented towards the truth.
- cryoshon 9y ago
  here is the problem with the NYT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies you'll find that their bias is toward whatever is convenient for the US state department at the time. generally speaking, they can't be trusted because they're on a leash. that's not to say that any individual story is factually incorrect so much as the stories they're allowed to work on and publish are kept within a certain narrow range. they sit on stories when told to. they don't write certain stories because it'd make their masters mad. they don't pick up stories which might invalidate their formerly expressed views. they are neutered in a dozen different ways. you'll also find that their op/eds are profoundly mediocre and "reasonable" reiterations of status quo thought that aren't particularly well contextualized or built to withstand critical responses. they never rock the boat. they never say anything perceptive. they never take a stand until long after there is a well established "safe" stand to take. and even then, it's a weak stand. as far as "just the facts" goes, they're not even that information dense. frequently, the lack of context (not necessarily intentional) is so severe as to be very misleading. you can do worse than the NYT by quite a bit. but it's still a rag. if you want an example of a better media outlet, check out the intercept. it's gone downhill recently, but the difference is palpable: the intercept offers contextualized fact-checked facts that people don't want published.
- flubert 9y ago
  I know nothing about the New York Times (i.e. I'm not a reader). But when someone tells me they are informed about world events, I ask them to name the largest armed conflict (by number of deaths) that occurred in their lifetime. Or just name the continent it occurred on.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  I'm partial to Chomsky's analysis of the news media as an institution of propaganda. this video is a good summary of his position https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic
fivestar 9y ago
Chomsky talked about agenda setting.

Theodores 9y ago

Propaganda is different to Fake News. The term itself is propaganda. If you say something is propaganda then you are saying it is like classic obvious propaganda, e.g. North Korean, Soviet or anything else 'communist'. With the term Fake News there is a dismissal of the story without aligning it to the imagery that the word 'propaganda' brings to mind. Consequently it is easier to use the words Fake News and not have the baggage of the more accurate 'propaganda' word.

hsod 9y ago

Can you explain (or link to an explanation for) your conclusion that there exists "overwhelming biases at most news publications", or even at the NYT in particular? I'm particularly interested in anything quasi-rigorous (i.e. not based on an individuals subjective feelings), but a well-reasoned personal perspective would be illuminating as well. My perception is that the NYT (on the news side) is imperfect but is fundamentally oriented towards the truth.

cryoshon 9y ago
here is the problem with the NYT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies you'll find that their bias is toward whatever is convenient for the US state department at the time. generally speaking, they can't be trusted because they're on a leash. that's not to say that any individual story is factually incorrect so much as the stories they're allowed to work on and publish are kept within a certain narrow range. they sit on stories when told to. they don't write certain stories because it'd make their masters mad. they don't pick up stories which might invalidate their formerly expressed views. they are neutered in a dozen different ways. you'll also find that their op/eds are profoundly mediocre and "reasonable" reiterations of status quo thought that aren't particularly well contextualized or built to withstand critical responses. they never rock the boat. they never say anything perceptive. they never take a stand until long after there is a well established "safe" stand to take. and even then, it's a weak stand. as far as "just the facts" goes, they're not even that information dense. frequently, the lack of context (not necessarily intentional) is so severe as to be very misleading. you can do worse than the NYT by quite a bit. but it's still a rag. if you want an example of a better media outlet, check out the intercept. it's gone downhill recently, but the difference is palpable: the intercept offers contextualized fact-checked facts that people don't want published.
flubert 9y ago
I know nothing about the New York Times (i.e. I'm not a reader). But when someone tells me they are informed about world events, I ask them to name the largest armed conflict (by number of deaths) that occurred in their lifetime. Or just name the continent it occurred on.
metaphorm 9y ago
I'm partial to Chomsky's analysis of the news media as an institution of propaganda. this video is a good summary of his position https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

fivestar 9y ago

Chomsky talked about agenda setting.